Reptile & Amphibian Forums

These are all non-morph normals.

Third Eye Herp

Tim,

To me, these are prettier than any morph out there, bar none.

Thanks for sharing, and please, keep posting pics of these, as they get older.
-----
Genesis 1:1

Those are very beautiful hognose and normal patterned. But they are still a morph. So your statement is odd and confrontational.
Anything other then normal is a morph(differs from normal).

All morphs, have at one time or are now, in nature or had been in nature at some point. Or we would not be able to surface them in captivity. Genes are not just a predictor of something, they are a record of something that has occurred.

As noted below, In the last year, I found in nature a number of morphs, so are they "normal"? I also found white background individuals and yellow background individuals and a couple of orange ones. So which ones are not normal? The axanthics outnumber some that folks consider normal.

This year a crazy banded one would found as well as patternless individuals. All in nature. Best wishes

I still say, I have not seen a keeper, any keeper, breed for ugly, which is pretty normal in nature. We tend to breed for exceptional, which is not normal. We means all of us. Including the keeper who produced those beautiful individuals.

"your statement is odd and confrontational."

I see you are still up to your same old tricks, Retes. Unfortunately I will not play your game.

I wasn't taking to you. I did say, your little hogs are very very pretty. Best wishes

" I see you are still up to your same old tricks, Retes. Unfortunately I will not play your game. "

Exactly! You could not have said it better myself Tim.
Funny how keyboard commandos vs. real herpers only make it harder for themselves to be taken seriously, as any comment they make, to anyone showing appreciation towards someone else's prized animal, is actually confrontational, and trying to stir up the peace on any forum.
-----
Genesis 1:1

I have to ask, what do you know about anything, all your good at is, taking sides without material(backbone) of your own. Good on you, your the man. Or are you a something else?

There is a real difference between many of you and I. As a field herper(first and foremost) I take data, I do not know anything. You should try and understand that. The data at some point tells you something.

With that in mind, that's how I work. I go by results, testing, repeated results, observations, etc. Its not about knowing. In my opinion, thinking you know something about an animal, only handcuffs you from actual learning.

When taking data, its not about right or wrong, or consensus or knowing. ITs simply taking data.

When keeping animals, again, its not about right or wrong or consensus or who says what, its about results. Results predict right or wrong and on a very temporary basis.
Results are daily, weekly, and over the lifetime of an animal. And can be rated both physically and behaviorally.

Also I go by a model. That model is the species/snake, in nature. Not the species in someone elses cages or even my cages. In captivity, I try to prove out something I have seen in nature.

This is where we differ and we should. Which goes back to the top. YOu want it about your right or wrong, or I am better or your better, when to me, none of that is important.

About fighting, you guys seem to like to fight. Well, I love to fight, I boxed, wrestled in high school and college, and took a little M.A. I also grew up in Watts and fought in the street. apparently I like to fight. But fighting has nothing to do with snakes, husbandry, and anything on this board. Its just fun. So if fighting is what you want, I your huckleberry. Cheers

...nobody cares!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

I Care, and that's the problem. You do not care about the animals, and only care about yourself and how you appear to others.
And the whining, its you kids who do the whining. I am doing fine and having fun and learning lots and lots.
Its just so sad to me that folks like you will hinder a free exchange of information, and all because its different that what you perceived as "right". Particularly when you have no idea what right is(the animal in nature) Have you ever SEEN one hognose in nature? muchless watch how they live and the choices they make????
Some folks are interested in this. Not you and not a few others, So my posts are NOT FOR YOU.

Troy, you and others here are FREE to keep your animals in any way you like. ITs your choice. I do not care how you keep them. But as seen here, there are others who want more then a hog in a box. They want to enjoy the animal for what It is and how it behaves. I wish you the best of luck and I hope someday, you look into your animals eyes and see them instead of yourself.

Would that mean that I could go looking for corns and find a wild Palmetto? I agree with you that genes are a record, but what if there is a morph that would not have happened except for captive breeding? Say there is a morph that occurred, oh 150 years ago in Canada and was bred out and done out by natural selection, but the gene is still there. Then there is a morph from New Mexico with a morph that disappeared in the wild 80 years ago, but is still there. Then in captivity these morphs are brought around again. Then, keeping in mind the Canada version never occurred in New Mexico, ever, and the same for the NM morph in Canada, then in captivity the two morphs are crossed, then a morph that has never been seen before may occur, less of course one is out right dominate over the other.

So I do agree that genes and morphs are a record of the past, but via fictional writing (in this case captive selective breeding), you could create a record that never actually existed until created by the artist/breeder.

I don't know a tonne about the deeper part of genetics but this makes sense to me after re-reading it several times.

I love your thoughts, as you know, its about about creating thought.

Lets look at it another way.

Back then, these animals were nothing like they are today and their ranges are nothing like they are today. At one point, they started from a common ancestor. As they evolved, we have no idea, what they looked like or if what we call morphs were a normal phenotype.

Many colubrids must or may have evolved from a common ancestor. As they have no genetic problems interbreeding. So species divergence must be fairly recent.

These are just examples, but its clear, that what we see today, is not what was here even in the fairly recent past.

When species migrated, the environment must have been very consistent to allow that. Then the climate changed and cause localized adaption as needed to exist.

The truth is, all we have is bones, so no color or pattern types are known from the past. ALso because the environment was different, we have no idea what was phenotypic. Thanks for the conversation and your thoughts

Very nice, thanks for sharing!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Tim, those are awesome. The one in the bottom pic looks like it has quite a bit of red in it. Beautiful color.

reako45